Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I hate to repeat  myself, but it looks you didn't see that:
> <<
> Harlan, Jack R. (1989). Wild-grass seed harvesting in the Sahara and
> Sub-Sahara of Africa. In: Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant
> exploitation (Harris, DR & Hillman GC, eds). London, Unwin Hyman:
>
> Over 60 species of grasses have been harvested for their grains in Africa.
> Most of these are famine or scarcity foods or are harvested casually and
> opportunistically. Several species, however, have provided food on a
> massive scale and have been staples for a number of tribes.

As you said "Most of these are famine or scarcity foods or are harvested
casually and opportunistically."

That large scale exploitation of grains came very late in human evolutionary
time is evident from our inability to digest them raw.  If they were a
staple in the time of human development prior to our recent mastery of fire,
we would be able to digest them raw.

If memory serves me right, evidence for mastery of fire--marked by remains
of hearths--came only in the past 50, 000 years, but evidence for hunting by
hominids and humans extends back well over 2 million years.

>Grass seeds need to be soaked or grinded to give access to the nutritious
inner contents. Or eaten unripe (like "Gruenkern").

Soaking requires water and a pot.  Water is scarce on a savannah, and pots
are recent inventions.  Perhaps baskets could have been used, leaving no
trace.  But why would any one wait three days for food from sprouted grass
seeds, when you could go out, kill an animal, and have a much larger, more
satisfying feast today?

Grinding requires stone grinders.  Such utensils are found only in
relatively recent  garbage heaps.   In contrast, axes for use in hunting and
processing game have been dated back over 400, 000 years.

Unripe grains could provide nourishment for only a brief period of time.  To
make grains a constant staple you have to harvest the mature dry seed.

The ultimate test may be human excrement.  According to Ardrey, studies of
human coprolites dating back before 50, 000 years have shown no plant matter
in the excrement.   Grains would have left their traces, as is evident from
the fact that human coprolites dating later than 50, 000 years have some
plant remains--fibers and seeds.

The main problem with the vegetarian hypothesis is that it simply tries to
ignore the undeniable fact that humans are hunters.  This is not a
hypothesis, it is a fact:  humans hunt.

There is NO doubt that chimpanzees hunt, NO doubt that hominids hunted, and
NO doubt that modern humans hunt.  In comparison, the granivorous hominid
hypothesis is very uncertain, based on scanty and speculative evidence.

The fact is, humans are superb hunters, and hunting brings good food fast,
you don't even have to cook it, let alone wait three days for it to sprout.
So for what reason would humans eat grains?   The question is like asking,
for what reason would a lion eat grass?  Only if the hunting was poor would
you fall back on a meager supper of sprouted grains.

don